Comparative Analysis of Multidimensional Learning Tools in Anatomy: A Randomized Control Trial.

IF 0.6 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Annals of African Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-20 DOI:10.4103/aam.aam_214_23
Sudha Rani, Govind Kumar Gupta, Ratnajeet Chakraborty, Tushar Kumar, Mani Kishlay Kumar, Anil Kumar Das, Shashank Shekhar
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Multidimensional Learning Tools in Anatomy: A Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Sudha Rani, Govind Kumar Gupta, Ratnajeet Chakraborty, Tushar Kumar, Mani Kishlay Kumar, Anil Kumar Das, Shashank Shekhar","doi":"10.4103/aam.aam_214_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, reduced hours in total and laboratory hours in gross anatomy along with a dearth of cadavers have ensued the search for a less time-consuming tool.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy in Sheikh Bhikhari Medical College, Hazaribag. A total of 282 medical students were taught gross anatomy, using three different learning modalities: dissection (n = 95), plastic models (n = 94), and three-dimensional (3D) anatomy software (n = 93). The knowledge of the students was examined by 100 multiple-choice question (MCQ) and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When performance is considered, the dissection and 3D group performed better than the plastic models group in total, MCQs, and tag questions. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection performed better than the other two modalities. Moreover, dissection and 3D software emerged as superior to the plastic models group.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis: </strong>All data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and t-test. Group-based analysis by ANOVA and gender-based analysis were done by Student's t-test. A comparison of students' perceptions was done by Kruskal-Wallis H-test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dissection remains a favorite with students and accomplishes a significantly higher attainment of knowledge. Plastic models are less effective but are a valuable tool in preparation for cadaveric laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":7938,"journal":{"name":"Annals of African Medicine","volume":"23 3","pages":"459-465"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11364337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of African Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_214_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, reduced hours in total and laboratory hours in gross anatomy along with a dearth of cadavers have ensued the search for a less time-consuming tool.

Materials and methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy in Sheikh Bhikhari Medical College, Hazaribag. A total of 282 medical students were taught gross anatomy, using three different learning modalities: dissection (n = 95), plastic models (n = 94), and three-dimensional (3D) anatomy software (n = 93). The knowledge of the students was examined by 100 multiple-choice question (MCQ) and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire.

Results: When performance is considered, the dissection and 3D group performed better than the plastic models group in total, MCQs, and tag questions. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection performed better than the other two modalities. Moreover, dissection and 3D software emerged as superior to the plastic models group.

Statistical analysis: All data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and t-test. Group-based analysis by ANOVA and gender-based analysis were done by Student's t-test. A comparison of students' perceptions was done by Kruskal-Wallis H-test.

Conclusion: Dissection remains a favorite with students and accomplishes a significantly higher attainment of knowledge. Plastic models are less effective but are a valuable tool in preparation for cadaveric laboratories.

解剖学多维学习工具的比较分析:随机对照试验
简介解剖学教学历来以解剖为基础。然而,由于解剖学总学时和实验室学时的减少以及尸体的缺乏,人们开始寻找一种耗时较少的工具:研究在哈扎里巴格 Sheikh Bhikhari 医学院解剖学系进行。共有 282 名医科学生接受了大体解剖学教学,使用了三种不同的学习模式:解剖(95 人)、塑料模型(94 人)和三维(3D)解剖软件(93 人)。通过 100 道选择题(MCQ)和标签题考察了学生的知识掌握情况,随后进行了评估问卷调查:结果:就成绩而言,解剖和三维组在总成绩、多选题和标记题方面的表现均优于塑料模型组。在评估问卷中,解剖组的成绩优于其他两种模式。此外,解剖和三维软件也优于塑料模型组:所有数据均采用单因素方差分析和 t 检验进行分析。基于组别的分析采用方差分析,基于性别的分析采用学生 t 检验。学生看法的比较采用 Kruskal-Wallis H 检验:结论:解剖仍然是学生们的最爱,而且能显著提高知识的掌握程度。塑料模型的效果较差,但却是为尸体实验室做准备的宝贵工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of African Medicine
Annals of African Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Annals of African Medicine is published by the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria and the Annals of African Medicine Society. The Journal is intended to serve as a medium for the publication of research findings in the broad field of Medicine in Africa and other developing countries, and elsewhere which have relevance to Africa. It will serve as a source of information on the state of the art of Medicine in Africa, for continuing education for doctors in Africa and other developing countries, and also for the publication of meetings and conferences. The journal will publish articles I any field of Medicine and other fields which have relevance or implications for Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信